NVIDIA Gets Sued For Patent Infringement

[Mize]

Yes, some companies abuse patents (SCO?), but small companies that innovate are regularly run roughshod over by big companies (like nV) and that isn't acceptable.

This company will likely lose - even if they're on good legal footing, nV has more, better, more expensive lawyers. When a big company steals technology with might it's no better than submarine patents. Worse in fact.

 

[3dcgi]

I don't know about this patent, but some companies use submarine patent techniques where the patent is initially too vague so it's rejected/sent back at which time the patent is expanded to include new discoveries. The kicker is the patent keeps the original filing date. I have read about this is reputable magazines/journals, but I don't know how widespread the practice is.

 

[Simon F]

A submarine patent shake down is a patent that was filed a *long time ago* and only recently granted.

But applications are searcheable...? I have several patents but no idea how to stall the approval process intentionally.

IANAPL** but...

Submarining was a (mal)practice that could occur in the USPTO. AFAIU, it involved something like continually adjusting the patent application so that it tracked industry practices and then allowing it to progress to grant when it would be "convenient".

A few years ago, the USPTO brought a number of its patent laws in line with the typical practice in the rest of the world and so applications automatically become public (IIRC) 18 months after filing.


**thankfully

 

[Xmas]

So if a supplier of say, Ford motor company, supplies Ford with distributors, and in testing said distributors the supplier uses a process that is patented, without having licenced that process, is Ford guilty of patent infringement....like hell it is. It is unreasonable to expect the buyer to have knowledge of everthing the supplier is doing, and whether all those things are legal, patented or whatever.

But what happens if the patent holder, writes to Ford and says, "listen you are buying parts from supplier x, who is infringing our patent as part of the process of manufacturing/testing this part. We will give you 30 days to cancel this contract. If you do not do so, then as a major source of the suppliers finanicial income, we will take the existence of this contract (in full knowledge that it requires an infringement of our patent to fulfil the contract) as an enticement/inducement for supplier x to continue to infringe our patent, and as such we will identify you as a contributory party in the patent infringement.

An interesting situation.

Thoughs anyone ?

Receiving some claim that an infringement is taking place is something entirely different than knowing of an infringement, or that the contract requires an infringement. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Simon F]

Receiving some claim that an infringement is taking place is something entirely different than knowing of an infringement, or that the contract requires an infringement. Innocent until proven guilty.

Again, IANAPL, but I think in the US a claimant might be able to block the sales of the other party's product so it still might be a big problem.

 

[DemoCoder]

IIRC, with patents, you are guilty until proven innocent. If someone claims you infringe, you must defend yourself in court. An unsuccessful defense or no defense means guilt by default because approval by USPTO implies validity of the patent. You have to prove your innocence. The accuser only has to do enough ground work to get a judge to grant a hearing or injunction. It's really idiotic. Someone could patent addition in some obfuscated way and then sue you for selling a calculator. The burden is on you to prove that you don't infringe and in most cases it would require overtturning the patent with prior art, extremely expensive and arduous process.

 

[Tagrineth]

nVidia getting sued... again? Dang.